Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DANNER v. MOORE

December 3, 1969

Bennie DANNER, Plaintiff,
v.
Thomas G. MOORE, Donald Ashton, Edward Costanza, Robert Mack, Ray Quinlan, Gordon E. Yagle, Joseph Daddio, and Harry Logue, Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARSH

 MARSH, District Judge.

 The defendants, except Ray Quinlan who was not served, moved to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint seeking damages under Civil Rights Act, Sec. 1983, Title 42 U.S.C., and Sec. 1343, Title 28 U.S.C.

 I.

 The reasons for dismissal, inter alia, stated by the defendants, Costanza, Mack, Yagle, and Logue are:

 
1. The court does not have jurisdiction of the matters alleged in the amended complaint.
 
2. As public officers they are immune from liability.
 
3. Plaintiff has not exhausted state remedies.
 
4. The complaint is frivolous.

 In my opinion the motion should be denied as to these defendants, except as to the defendant, Logue.

 It is my opinion that this court has jurisdiction.

 Plaintiffs seeking to enforce their civil rights in federal court ordinarily are not required to exhaust state remedies. Cf. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 183, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1961); McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668, 83 S. Ct. 1433, 10 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1963).

 The amended complaint is not frivolous.

 The amended complaint alleges generally a conspiracy and charges specifically that all the defendants, which include Mack and Yagle, police officers of the Township of Penn Hills, and Costanza, a detective of Allegheny County, under color of the laws of Pennsylvania, did unlawfully cause the search, seizure and arrest of the plaintiff and took from his person $6,224 without probable cause, or under invalid search warrants, "if in fact any [search warrants] were issued prior to the arrest", and the plaintiff was imprisoned following the arrest and unwarranted criminal prosecution instituted. It is required that I accept these pleaded facts as the hypothesis for decision. Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651, 652, 71 S. Ct. 937, 95 L. Ed. 1253 (1951). It seems to be indisputable that a person deprived of his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search, seizure and arrest ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.